Just adding the race into it manner as the OP did is the wrong direction. Also, it inadvertently makes assumption that Democrats don't cater to the White male. This would be a completely false conclusion. There are other obvious reasons that have nothing to do with race.

Except race does in fact come into it. This last election was a demographic victory for the Democrats; they brought together a coalition of Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, Gays, and younger white people as their core voter bloc. The fact that the Republican core caters to the conservative white male, a demographic that will ostensibly never grow in size again, is one of the reasons for their decline.

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

- Thucydides

There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.

I haven't read anything at all about the thread. Just gonna answer the title. They need to stop portraying themselves as angry rich white people. I'm not saying they are but that's how many people view them. I see it all the time. People always making remarks like that.

My pops is guilty of the republican stereo type. Zealot and all. I have an economic point of view that is pretty much republican but that's about it. Socially, I'm the other way.

If they want to become and stay relevant, the whole religion thing needs to go out the window, they need to lose the 1950 social views, and they need to stop caring about getting as many white Christian men as they can and start showing they care about people other than white Christian men with money.

I am an altoholic, but never got toons past 30. I am trying to refine my ways.

Except race does in fact come into it. This last election was a demographic victory for the Democrats; they brought together a coalition of Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, Gays, and younger white people as their core voter bloc. The fact that the Republican core caters to the conservative white male, a demographic that will ostensibly never grow in size again, is one of the reasons for their decline.

Yes yes, we want to measure demographics, but the simple conclusion that one race causes one political agenda is outrageous. We don't have to look too far to Europe or other places to tell that is not true one bit. In that regard, the removal of one race won't bring to the end of a political agenda either.

They need to get away from discrimination politics (hate a woman, Hispanic, or gay, pick your flavor of the day!) and religion entirely. Furthermore, they need to update their brand of fiscal conservatism to reflect modern day analyses--you will not find a single serious economist who believes the trickle down theory and total market deregulation is viable for long-term economic policy (not counting the ones on party payrolls, of course).

Radical being a relative term. Nancy Pelosi is just as poisonous for conservatives as Chris Christy is for dems, and all polls still show that the US has a very conservative leaning.

no, for the most part it shows america going in the other direction. the conservative/religious base is shrinking, mostly due to the fact that they are dying of old age. just wait, 2016 will be a massacre in terms of demographics voting on more progressive issues over conservative ones.

---------- Post added 2013-02-24 at 03:34 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Raybourne

isn't that supposed to be OWS?

they don't have a say on what goes on in washington. its a movement, not an actual political faction.

Yes yes, we want to measure demographics, but the simple conclusion that one race causes one political agenda is outrageous. We don't have to look too far to Europe or other places to tell that is not true one bit. In that regard, the removal of one race won't bring to the end of a political agenda either.

Apples to Oranges; most European countries are, for the most part, ethnoreligiously homogeneous. Point of fact, many political issues in those countries are related to significant minorities that differ from the main bloc of the population.

The fact remains that the core of the Republican party is the conservative white male, and the GOP's agendas are defined by that voter bloc.

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

- Thucydides

There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.

Radical being a relative term. Nancy Pelosi is just as poisonous for conservatives as Chris Christy is for dems, and all polls still show that the US has a very conservative leaning.

I'm not sure what your point there was, but I'd venture that Chris Christie is probably one of the Republicans most respected by Democratic voters. Because he's willing to compromise and work with Democrats when his duties call for it, rather than stonewalling everything because party is more important than country, like most Republicans have been going the last four years.

since i must spoon feed this: yes its the republicans. I'm not at all saying its white peoples fault. what we are saying is the GOP for the most part doesn't give a shit about anyone else but rich, white, men.

That is a wrong observation in the bold part. Do you believe that Republicans consider a rich black man's money not good enough?

Frankly I just don't see it happening. Republicans have relied on dominating the white senior vote for a long time. They really can't just shift gears and change their platform on social issues.

A lot of libertarians think that if the Republicans will just drop social issues they'll win, but (even assuming they could) there isn't any evidence to support that. Ron Paul lost the primary for a reason. Ron Paul has loud, extremely annoying supporters who will yell in your ear for an hour, but there aren't enough of them for him to win a general election. Does anyone really think a Ron Paul style candidate could win in Ohio, Florida, or Nevada? Not happening.

They need to drop religion completely, get rid of all of the morons that hold positions of power in places that DO NOT benefit the people they're elected to serve etc.

And then, MAYBE, they have a chance of being viewed as a somewhat sane group of people. While they have people spewing the asinine nonsense that they do without taking action against them, they're all as bad as each other.

That is a wrong observation in the bold part. Do you believe that Republicans consider a rich black man's money not good enough?

money is all they care about. they care about the rich, flat out no questions asked. that is at every level of government (again dems are guilty of it too). the racial part of it comes mostly form the fact that they are against social programs that poorer groups benefit from the most (blacks being a big part of it). it's not intentional but then again they only care about the pay checks they are getting.

---------- Post added 2013-02-24 at 03:45 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Admiral Daelin Proudmoore

Nominate moderates. The Obama campaign was the most scared of Jon Huntsman. If the GOP nominated Huntsman, he would have been president.

it's too bad huntsman posed a threat to both parties. along with Ron Paul (but fuck him) so of course they would never in their dreams nominate him.

The fact remains that the core of the Republican party is the conservative white male, and the GOP's agendas are defined by that voter bloc.

I don't think a single political view defines one single race. It think it defines certain economical factors and relationships in society which will have obvious correlation with certain demographic groups.